Gravity & Strong Force

[Bengt Nyman]

Hello Michael,

Wal and several others have the last few years started supporting the idea that dipoles formed by electrostatic constituents inside atoms might have something to do with phenomena not earlier understood. I can not make an apples to apples comparison between Wals general support for the idea and my own more detailed work to explain and quantify the how and why of gravity and strong force.

Bengt Nyman

[thermoMan]

Thank you for the statements and the weblink. I tried to make myself a picture of the EU hypothesis regarding gravity. I understoud that due to the tiny diplacement of the opposite charges in the postured dipoles, there is a resulting ES force vector between them. Very much like a polar liquid, having a reduced vapour pressure by electrical means. If a mechanism of this kind can explain gravity, it should be easy to proof or disproof by quantitative computation or even analytics...
I agree on the statement that many scientists are not much more than believers, repeating what they were told without a satisfying degree of knowledge interlink or real comprehension. This isn't surprising due to intellectual limits, social behaviour and economics. I share as well the point of view, that modern physics like string theory is probably not science but rather intellectual mastrubation, as it's very weird and far beyond any detectable reality. A good example of such pathological physics imo is Stephen Hawking's god disproof, indicating a severe intellectual disorder or at least megalomania for obvious reasons.
I appreciate your strictly classical model and hope you succeed in explaining all the phenomena by its means! Also if I have to admit, that not every argument on holo-science against Einstein physics makes sense to me (which does not mean much )

thermoMan

[jacmac]

I have been trying to follow this thread with only partial success, due to my own ignorance.

One specific question I have about particle physics keeps getting in my way. If opposite charge(s) attract, why is an electron at the relatively far distance from the proton as is generally described ? Why do they not continue to attract and get closer ? What is supposed to be going on at this level?

I have not been able to find this out. All particle physics discussion seems to take this as known by all. I must have been out sick that day. If I can get passed this I would be able to move on and enjoy this discussion even more.

Thanks for any help on this one!

Jack

[remelic]

I have been trying to follow this thread with only partial success, due to my own ignorance.

One specific question I have about particle physics keeps getting in my way. If opposite charge(s) attract, why is an electron at the relatively far distance from the proton as is generally described ? Why do they not continue to attract and get closer ? What is supposed to be going on at this level?

I have not been able to find this out. All particle physics discussion seems to take this as known by all. I must have been out sick that day. If I can get passed this I would be able to move on and enjoy this discussion even more.

Thanks for any help on this one!

Jack

IMO:
This is because the model of the atom is obviously incorrect. If you cant understand it with the given model then re-evaluate the problem. All physical matter is neutral and sphere-like. Atoms have charge associated with them. Each one can be positively charged, negatively charged, or neutral being in balance with both charge. An "electron" is what scientists "see" when two Atoms are in close proximity of each other and static discharge occurs between them. That spark is the electron.

[webolife]

Remelic, that's a good illustration of the difficulty/confusion that arises from corpusculizing an effect... "electrons" are an effect more than an object... "photons" much more so... atoms are essentially crystalline in nature, and the energy transfers that occur when they interact [called electricity] are most easily [IMHO] described vectorially, ie. as magnitude and direction, ie a force or pressure phenomenon.

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi jacmac,

If the electron was strictly a negatively charged particle it should be attracted to and crash into the positively charged nucleus of the atom. But it does not. Perhaps because particles are not little grains of solid mass but actually balls of nested, closed loops of electromagnetic energy. Imagine the path of an electron around a nucleus as a standing electromagnetic wave orbiting the nucleus. The diameter of the electron orbit can then not get any smaller than what the minimal number of wavelengths that forms a circle will allow. This way of looking at it also fits the fact that electrons around larger atom nuclei form discrete layers of orbits. This may be because when you add one more wavelength to the electron orbit you get a specifically larger diameter of orbit.
This is a very simplified take on it, and probably not complete. Charge and mass comparisons suggest that electrons are quite complex and possibly constructed of a large number of smaller energy constituents, yet unidentified.

Bengt Nyman

[jacmac]

Thank you Mr. Nyman; that is helpful.

To this non scientist interested in the subject above I can't help but wonder if the "strong force" is somehow related to this editorial regarding the electrical theories of WEBER.

"When the consideration of mass is introduced into his velocity-dependent electrical force equation, it results that there is a critical length below which the force of repulsion between two electrical particles is changed to attraction, and vice versa!"

This is from: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... amics.html

I am learning this scientific material admittedly in the style of a dilettante bouncing around and following ideas as they seem to connect. I will be re-reading the above material with a quark coloring book at hand.

Thanks again,
Jack

[Bengt Nyman]

A simple analogy that helps you envision the crossover from Strong Force to Same-Charge-Rejection is the following:
Imagine that you are a positively charged proton. You want to join an existing atom nucleus. You see what looks like a good spot on the nucleus. You approach the nucleus only to find that there are two protons standing guard, one on each side of your chosen spot. But with strong determination you press on in between the two guard protons. Once your shoulders pass between theirs you are slammed into a little cave. The Same-Charge-Rejection that tried to push you away from the nucleus now holds you in place on the larger nucleus.

In actuality the picture is more complicated than this because as a proton you consist of two positively charged up-quarks and one negatively charged down-quark. So do the guards. And the opposite is true about adjacent neutrons. So the actual force play is a lot more complex. However, the effect is similar.

[webolife]

Bengt,
I have read and try to understand some of your work...
To me the concept of instantaneous force across distance [ie across space] is an inescapable attribute of the universe both macro- and micro-cosmic. What is your take on this concept? An answer that would correctly inform a middle-schooler would be appreciated, if possible, but I'll take the technical version if necessary.

[Bengt Nyman]

Hi webolife,

Force is an interaction between two parties. The steel ball bouncing on the marble floor is an interaction between the ball and the floor where both give a little before going back to normal. A gravitational force is an interaction between electrostatic charges being attracted to each other. As soon as the charges exist the force exists. Should one suddenly move, change or disappear the force also changes or disappears accordingly. Forces know no time and no speed, at least not along the scales of time and speed as we know them.

[mharratsc]

An electron would have to be a particle for it to be a charge carrier, would it not? We understand that a dense plasma focus, as well as the EU/PC models of astrophysical z-pinches, emit an ion beam from the positive side of a pinch zone, and an electron beam from the other side.

Would this not prove the particle nature of the electron?

[Bengt Nyman]

Traditionally speaking you are of course right. We coined the expression particle a long time ago when we wanted to differentiate seemingly stable and solid constituents like molecules and atoms from more dynamic and fluid phenomena like light and radiation.
The fact that for example photons of light no longer seem to fit either category and the observation that an electron also seems to be able to take on different forms of existence is beginning to point to the fact that both hold secrets beyond our old and simple classifications.
We have come to accept the expressions Energy, Charge, Mass and more. But what really lies below and behind it all ? We know that E=mc^2. If one form of energy can convert into another, must they not have a common building block of some kind ?
If resting energy looks like mass, does restless energy show as charge, and does energy on the move appear as radiation ?
what is the smallest common denominator in the world of energy ? Is there a form of energy prime behind it all ? A tiny, indestructible phenomena that can form cooperatives in the shape of energy, charge, mass and the rest of energy derivatives that we see ?
I wish I knew.

[Lloyd]

* Bengt, have you seen any of Prof. Kanarev's material? I discussed it somewhat at these 3 posts on the NPA thread:
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... 284#p48301
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =15#p50022
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... =15#p50026
* His team seems to have figured things out to a considerable degree.
- Like several other NPA members, he says ether has mass and I guess he thinks the mass of particles comes from the ether.
- He figured out the shape and size of electrons, protons and neutrons and how they're arranged in atoms and molecules and how they sometimes transmute. Much of that is mentioned and shown in the 3rd post link above.
- He found that electrons form clusters in straight lines and that's what electrical discharges, like lightning, consist of. I know there's also positive lightning, but I don't know his explanation of that. I have his email address, so I'll try to ask him things like that.
* Bill Lucas's group has done similar work and come to similar conclusions, but Kanarev's seems to be more advanced.
* Kanarev's has lots of experimental evidence reported, which I'm trying to devour. Several of us ought to cooperate on that. Right? And then report it here etc.

[orrery]

Wow, I was on a plane flight the other day and was working out a theory about how Gravity is a scaled up version of the Strong Force then log on to find this thread. Awesome! I'm immersing myself in it now. The strong force was unified with electroweak a while back if I recall leaving "gravity" as the black sheep. This seems to solve the problem.

[webolife]

Bengt,
You describe a force as being between parties...
I am interested in the word "between" here - - does the force act in a field that exists around the "parties" or is it a [zero distance] collision between parties? You went on to describe a traditional elastic collision analogy, but my question still requires a description of the collision, do the parties physically touch each other [eg. electron to electron, whatever those are]? Or do they interact instantaneously across a space [er, field], as you see it?